We’re evaluating the free versions of leading LLMs as part of our ‘De-mystifying digitalisation and AI in maritime campaign’ and assessing the extent to which they might prove useful for maritime businesses. Each month, we will pose questions about the maritime industry to the public versions of five leading AI platforms – ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini and Grok, before inviting an expert guest judge to help us assess which LLM made the grade. For information about the judging criteria, please visit the AI comparison overview page.

Want to get our verdict delivered straight to your inbox? Be sure to subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

January’s Question: Why wasn’t the Net Zero Framework adopted at the recent IMO MEPC Extraordinary Session?

ChatGPT:

Why wasn’t the Net Zero Framework adopted at the recent IMO MEPC Extraordinary Session?

Sources cited: Safety4Sea, Wikborg Rein, Breakwave Advisory, Wotton Kearney, MFAI.gov.ck Argus Media

Sources primarily cited: Saftey4Sea (five citations), Wikborg Rein (two citations), Argus Media (two citations)

Here’s why the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net-Zero Framework (NZF) was not adopted at the recent Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) Extraordinary Session in October 2025 — despite earlier agreement in principle:

🚫 1. Member States Failed to Reach Necessary Support to Adopt It

• Adoption of the NZF — which would introduce binding greenhouse-gas (GHG) fuel-intensity targets and a global carbon pricing mechanism — required a high level of support (a two-thirds majority under the tacit acceptance/amendment procedure). However, when the proposal came up for formal adoption, member states did not muster enough agreement.

📊 2. Vote to Postpone Adoption Passed

• Instead of adopting the NZF text, delegates voted (57 in favour vs. 49 against) to delay the decision for one year. Because of this postponement, the framework was not adopted at the session.

🛢 3. Political and Geopolitical Divisions Over Core Elements

Several countries, including major oil-producing states and others with specific economic concerns, did not support the framework as drafted:

• Some governments argued that the global carbon pricing mechanism could distort trade or disproportionately impact certain economies.
• Delegations aligned with energy exporters pushed for more time to refine and build wider consensus rather than moving ahead with adoption.
• Broader geopolitical dynamics and competing policy priorities made reaching consensus difficult within the session’s timeframe.

🤝 4. Strategic Decision by Supporters to Delay Rather Than Lose a Vote

• Key supporters like Singapore indicated the decision to defer was, in part, to preserve the overall structure of the framework and allow further negotiation, because the atmosphere was not conducive to a successful adoption vote.

📅 What Happens Next

• The framework remains on the agenda and discussions will resume at the next MEPC session (likely in late 2026).
• Because it wasn’t adopted, it cannot enter into force now; its earliest possible implementation is pushed back.

In short

The Net-Zero Framework wasn’t adopted because members could not achieve sufficient agreement at the Extraordinary Session, leading to a vote to postpone the adoption for a year amid divisions over core elements like carbon pricing and its economic impacts — and a calculation by some supporters that delaying was preferable to a defeated vote.

If you want, I can break down the main points of contention in more detail (e.g., carbon pricing issues, regional positions, procedural hurdles) or explain what the framework would have meant in practice.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Claude:

Why wasn’t the Net Zero Framework adopted at the recent IMO MEPC Extraordinary Session?

Only cited source: Vinson & Elkins

The Net Zero Framework wasn’t adopted at the October 2025 MEPC Extraordinary Session due to a motion to adjourn proposed by Saudi Arabia, which passed by a narrow margin with 57 member states voting to adjourn and 49 voting to continue Vinson & Elkins.

Several factors contributed to the failure to adopt:

Political pressure from the United States

The Trump administration strongly opposed the framework. Days before the session, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued a joint statement unequivocally rejecting the framework and encouraging other nations to reject it Vinson & Elkins. The U.S. characterized it as a global carbon tax and threatened to impose costs on countries that supported it.

Shifting positions among key nations

Several countries that had previously backed the measures and approved the framework in April 2025 either abstained or changed their votes Vinson & Elkins. Notably, China switched from supporting the measure to voting for delay, while EU members Greece and Cyprus abstained. Major shipping nations like Singapore and Liberia also objected.

Concerns about feasibility

Critics focused primarily on the lack of sufficient supply for clean fuels that would meet the framework’s greenhouse gas intensity targets Vinson & Elkins. Major fossil fuel-producing countries including Saudi Arabia and Russia argued the framework would create economic hardship.

The session has been adjourned for one year, with plans to reconvene in October 2026. Meanwhile, work on implementation guidelines continues, and member states are working toward building consensus during this interim period.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Copilot:

Why wasn’t the Net Zero Framework adopted at the recent IMO MEPC Extraordinary Session?

Sources: Seatrade Maritime, Vinson & Elkins, Riviera Maritime, DNV

The IMO’s Net Zero Framework (NZF) was not adopted at the recent MEPC Extraordinary Session because political opposition—primarily from the United States and Saudi Arabia—blocked consensus, leading Member States to adjourn the session and delay the vote for one year. Strong disagreements over the proposed global carbon pricing mechanism and pressure tactics further prevented the committee from reaching agreement.

🧭 What Actually Happened at the Session?

1. Intense Political Pushback

• The United States strongly opposed the NZF’s global carbon pricing mechanism, with President Trump publicly criticizing the proposal.
• Reports indicate the U.S. pressured smaller states with threats involving tariffs, port fees, and vessel access to discourage support.

2. Saudi Arabia’s Procedural Move

• Saudi Arabia formally requested a one‑year delay, which aligned with the U.S. position and helped prevent adoption.
• This procedural intervention effectively halted the vote.

3. Lack of Consensus Among Member States

• The NZF requires broad agreement because it amends MARPOL Annex VI, a core environmental treaty.
• Deep divisions remained over:
  • How quickly to tighten fuel‑intensity standards
  • Whether to impose a global carbon levy
  • How revenues should be distributed
• Without consensus, the committee chose to adjourn for one year rather than force a vote.

4. Negotiations Became Too Polarized

• Observers noted that discussions had become “increasingly tense and fraught,” making constructive negotiation difficult.
• Many states preferred returning to substantive negotiation rather than a binary yes/no vote.

📅 What Happens Next?

• The MEPC will reconvene in October 2026 to revisit the NZF.
• A working group will continue developing guidelines and technical details in the meantime.

If you’d like, I can also break down the specific elements of the NZF that caused the most disagreement, or explain how IMO decision‑making rules make consensus difficult.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Gemini:

Why wasn’t the Net Zero Framework adopted at the recent IMO MEPC Extraordinary Session?

Sources cited: Hill Dickinson (Liverpool law firm), CIMAC (non-profit association promoting the development of ship propulsion), Seas at Risk (non-profit association) International Marine Contractors Association, DNV, Carbon Gap policy tracker)

Primarily cites: CIMAC (4 citation) and Hill Dickinson (3 citations)

The Net-Zero Framework (NZF) was not adopted at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) Extraordinary Session in October 2025 due to a successful procedural maneuver led by a group of opposing member states.

Instead of a vote on the framework itself, a motion to adjourn the meeting for one year was passed, effectively delaying the adoption until October 2026.

1. The Procedural “Stall”

The session (MEPC ES 2) opened with the goal of formally adopting the NZF, which had already been approved in principle in April 2025. However, opposition grew into a significant political divide:

• The Vote to Adjourn: Saudi Arabia proposed a procedural motion to postpone the entire session for a year. Under IMO rules, procedural motions take precedence over substantive ones (like the actual adoption of the law).
• The Result: The motion passed with 57 votes in favor, 49 against, and 21 abstentions. Because the meeting was adjourned, the vote to adopt the Net-Zero Framework never took place.

2. Key Reasons for Opposition

The opposition was led primarily by major fossil-fuel-producing nations (Saudi Arabia, Russia) and, notably, the United States under the returning Trump administration. The primary arguments against adoption included:

• Economic Impact: Opponents argued the framework’s “pricing mechanism” (a carbon levy) was an “unsanctioned global tax regime” that would increase costs for consumers and disrupt global trade.
• Fuel Availability: There were concerns that the mandated Greenhouse Gas Fuel Intensity (GFI) targets were too steep given the current lack of a global supply of zero-emission fuels like green ammonia or methanol.
• Disproportionate Burden: Developing nations expressed fear that the cost of compliance would unfairly penalize their economies, while the “Net-Zero Fund” for redistributing revenues remained vaguely defined.
• Political Pressure: Reports indicated the US delegation used high-pressure tactics, including threats of retaliatory tariffs and sanctions against countries that supported the framework.

3. Impact of the Delay

The failure to adopt the framework has created significant “regulatory uncertainty” for the shipping industry:

• Timeline Shift: The earliest possible entry into force for these global regulations has now been pushed back to March 2028.
• Investment Chill: Shipowners and fuel producers may delay multi-billion dollar investments in green technology without a clear, legally binding global signal.
• Regional Fragmentation: There is a growing risk that regions (like the EU with its ETS) will implement their own stricter rules, creating a “patchwork” of different regulations for global shipping to navigate.

Next Steps

While the formal adoption is stalled, technical work continues. The Intersessional Working Group (ISWG-GHG) is currently developing the specific “Guidelines” for the framework so that if it is adopted in 2026, the industry will have the technical details ready.

Would you like me to look into the specific technical guidelines currently being debated for the 2026 session?

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Grok:

Why wasn’t the Net Zero Framework adopted at the recent IMO MEPC Extraordinary Session?

Sources: Cimac.com, IMO, DNV, Lloyd’s Register, Facebook, LinkedIn

First answer: Grok is under heavy usage right now

Second answer:

The Net Zero Framework (NZF) was not adopted at the recent IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) Extraordinary Session, specifically the 2nd extraordinary session (MEPC/ES.2), held from October 14–17, 2025.

The session was convened specifically to consider formal adoption of draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, which would have established the NZF as legally binding. The NZF—approved in principle at MEPC 83 in April 2025—includes measures like a global GHG fuel intensity standard and a pricing/reward mechanism aimed at decarbonizing international shipping toward net-zero emissions by or around 2050.

Instead of adoption, the meeting ended with a decision to adjourn discussions and reconvene in one year (expected in October 2026). This postponement means the earliest possible entry into force would now be around March 2028, if adopted then.

The key reasons for non-adoption include:

• Deep divisions among member states — The committee remained divided throughout the session. A roll-call vote on the final day saw a narrow majority (57 in favor, 49 against, with abstentions and absences) support adjourning the session for one year rather than proceeding to adopt the amendments.
• Strong opposition from major players, particularly the United States and oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia (with support from others such as the UAE and Singapore). The US issued strong pre-meeting threats of retaliatory measures (e.g., trade restrictions, port access blocks, visa sanctions, or other penalties) against countries supporting the NZF, describing it critically as involving a form of global carbon pricing/tax. Saudi Arabia led procedural maneuvers to push for delay.
• Procedural tactics — Opponents shifted focus to procedural challenges, including attempts to alter acceptance rules (e.g., proposing a shift from tacit to explicit acceptance, which could have delayed or blocked implementation indefinitely). These efforts contributed to stalling progress and building support for adjournment over adoption.

While disappointing for proponents (including many EU states and climate-focused groups), the adjournment keeps the framework alive rather than rejecting it outright. Work continues in the interim through intersessional groups (e.g., ISWG-GHG) to develop implementation guidelines, aiming to rebuild consensus for a future vote. The IMO Secretary-General noted the framework remains “very much alive” despite the delay.

This outcome reflects geopolitical tensions around global climate measures, economic impacts on shipping/fossil fuel interests, and challenges in achieving broad multilateral agreement on binding decarbonization rules.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Want to submit a question for the project or let us know which LLM you think got it right? Email info@intentcommunications.co.uk